Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:h2udmf$1b0...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:h2u735$sn...@digitalmars.com...
grauzone wrote:
I oriented this on the syntax of array slices. Which work that way. Not
inconsistent at all. It's also consistent with foreach(_; x..y).
It would look consistent, but it would behave very differently. x..y for
foreach and slices is exclusive of the y, while case x..y is inclusive.
The current way has that inconsistency:
variable .. variable // exclusive end
caseLabel .. caseLabel // inclusive end
And yes, I know that's not how it's actually parsed, but that's how
people visually parse it.
I don't think so at all. There's a lot of punctuation that has different
roles depending on the context. For example, ":" means key/value separator
or ternary operator participant; "*" means multiplication or pointer
dereference; "&" means taking address or binary "and"... plenty of
examples. So you can't center on ".." and claim that it visually means the
same thing even though the surrounding is different. You really have no
argument here.
Those examples are all cases where the meaning and context are wildly
different fbetween one use and the other. But with '..', both uses are very
similar: "From xxx to (incl/excl) yyy". Big differences are ok, they stand
out as obvious. Small differences can be more problematic.
You'd have an uphill battle using a counterfeit Swiss army knife against
a battery of Gatling guns arguing that
case 'a': .. case 'z':
is very similar with
0 .. 10
That's actually much more different than e.g.
a = b * c;
versus
b * c;
FWIW, Even though I dislike it, I don't think it's a sky-falling issue or
anything. I just don't think it's so "obviously great" as you and Walter see
it.
I'm not claiming it's obviously great. I do claim it's highly appropriate.
Basically, I see it as a questionable *but* acceptable solution
*provided that* it's just a stop-gap in the interim before finally getting a
completely re-thought switch/pattern-matcher.
What is the question you are asking in the "questionable" part?
Andrei
